It's been a blood sport since the 19th century, when, not coincidentally, the rise of the press coincided with the rise of democracy in the West.

But after too many months of bitter accusations of bias, prejudice and lack of "batting for the home team", it's time to recall the forgotten figure of the mugwump. The non-partisan observer of politics. Most journalists are mugwumps, though you might not know it from the way we are often described as ideological warriors salivating over opportunities to pursue foes. (A prospect as exhausting as it is fictional).

This does not mean they do not have private views – journalists do vote – but that journalism is a profession and bias is unprofessional. As ABC journalist Jonathan Green put it: "Journalism tainted by conviction just isn't. That's the simple truth of it."

Advertisement

The name mugwump originated with a group of US Republicans who refused to support their candidate, James Blaine, in 1884 because of financial corruption and instead supported the Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland, who went on to become president.

Mark Twain was a mugwump. He described them in his autobiography as "a little company made up of the unenslaved . . . We were not a party; we had no candidates; we had no axes to grind. . . . When voting, it was our duty to vote for the best man, regardless of his party name. We had no other creed."

Excellent, right? Now it means a person who acts independently, observing politics with a cool, practised eye.

Most journalists who spend any considerable period of time immersed in, and reporting on, politics are mugwumps. Mugwumps know there are fools, narcissists and decent people on both sides of politics. That the best of intentions can warp. That, under the full glare of scrutiny, some men and women wilt, some bloom and some morph into something, or someone else. That power does very peculiar things to people. That corruption flourishes in dark corners and spreads when questions aren't asked. That extracting truth can be like a bloody-fingered archaeological dig. That the process of politics can be farcical, brutal and absurd. That, once or twice a century, a brilliant leader can miraculously emerge.

Mugwumps are also data driven. So what does the data actually tells us about bias?

In 2012, economists Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh published a detailed study of media bias in Australia in The Economic Record. Using several different metrics for media slant, they found "most media outlets are close to the centre position". Only one of nine newspapers – The Age – was found to be not in the centre and it was to the left. But here's the crunch – in the 1996-2007 period, 36 out of 44 election endorsements favoured the Coalition. Media proprietors also donated far more to the Coalition, with a skew as high as three to one.

They also found ABC TV news was slanted towards the Coalition. (Leigh says since this study The Australian has shifted right. He is now a Labor MP but he is not alone in this view.)

A recent study from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney, found a strong skew towards climate sceptics in the Australian media.

Last month, an independent audit of the ABC – by former 60 Minutes executive producer Gerald Stone – found 93 of 97 stories about asylum seekers did not show bias. A second audit into radio interviews conducted during last year's federal election also cleared the national broadcaster of bias. The conclusion was that the ABC overwhelmingly meets its professional standards.

Other studies show while a majority of newsroom journalists have liberal leanings, a majority of management leans right.

So why the ferocity about an alleged leaning to the left? We seem to have confused interrogation with prosecution. We should not need to spell out journalism involves relentless, uncomfortable questioning.

Why don't we discuss instead the fact that the media are still mostly run by men who are white and middle class?

Of course, not all journalists are fair, balanced and accurate. But those who aren't are not the lions of our profession; not who we aspire to be or respect.

Mugwumps recognise strengths in both parties. And weaknesses. Both, for example, have been fiscally sloppy, poll-driven and shameful on asylum seekers.

Which takes me to a final point. Are we really to imagine that the only people in this country who care about the fate of asylum seekers are on the left? Both major parties agree on offshore processing. It is a severe indictment of us all to suggest the word "compassion" is inflammatory and not one of the most important of human virtues.

If we have got to the point that to ask how a person was killed or injured while in our care, if pregnant women have access to adequate medical facilities in detention and if locking children up for years behind wire has a lasting psychological impact on them, then we have lost sight of our basic responsibility as human beings. Now there are fresh allegations that guards on Nauru assaulted children; hitting one girl so hard she fell to the ground.

It is not bias to care for the stateless and vulnerable. It's decency.

And it's a question of good government. And that's why we need mugwump journalists.

Julia Baird is a co-host of The Drum on ABC24.

44 comments

There are very few *real* journalists left in the Australian political landscape, prepared to do the hard yards of research and ferreting out a story; perhaps only Kate McClymont, Michael Smith and Hedley Thomas. We all know where Michael Smith's and Glenn Milne's diligence led them...

Ms Baird's lack of insight is monumental. Where were the hard questions on the NBN, Gonski, Deaths-at-sea and the AWU-WRA? The waste and mismanagement over the NBN is the worst in Australian history- with more than $7 billion dollars already spent for less than 3% coverage- with almost no journalistic oversight. The NBN failed to meet every one of its rollout targets to journalistic silence. Gonski is the same; Federal spending on education has been increasing steadily over the last two decades but the results (as measured by Australia's OECD rankings and standards testing) have been going backwards- how is just throwing more money at the problem supposed to fix things? Where are the journalists looking into this? Asylum seekers? The over 4000 in detention obviously all arrived after the election because reporting and criticism was muted or non-existent before then. It is instructive that despite Manus Island being set up by the Rudd administration, the blame for the alleged misconduct of the guards is sheeted home to the LNP who are cleaning up the ALP mess. And the ABC has yet to begin its reporting on the AWU affair, with Fairfax also coming late to the party.

Governments only ever gets held to strict journalistic scrutiny when of conservative nature. "Progressive" governments get an easy ride from their fellow travelers in the Press Gallery- and despite Ms Baird's self-delusion, so it proved during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.

Commenter

Cold-Hands

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 9:53AM

I suspect almost every journalist would imagine they belong to that magnificent group - those who describe themselves as Mugwumps.And, particularly, any view that could be perceived as partisan by 'outsiders' is merely dismissed as a matter of humanity and decency - not a political or partisan position; that solves that.We are all Mugwumps now.

Commenter

Howe Synnott

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 1:10PM

Of course if you sit on the extreme right, scrutiny and criticism of anyone left of Genghis Khan will never be sufficiently prevalent or vitriolic. To take some examples: The increased schools funding by the Federal government, according to the official website on this is largely due to enrolment increases and indexation, with a jump in 2010-11 and 11-12 due to the BER stimulus package, which was not well handled and which copped blistering attacks throughout the media. The fall in Australia's international rankings in school results is latgely due to the improvements in developing countries. The Gonski proposals are not indiscrimnate money-throwing, but targetting the resources better. Anyone who followed the media debate on education would have found plenty of material on this. Asylum seeker policy of both sides has been the subject of enormous press coverage. There has been considerable debate on the NBN, with Turnbull appearing on numerous occasions. The AWU 'slush fund' has had more coverage than the recently revealed Liberal slush funds. Yesterday's 7.30NSW interview with Baird was the softest treatment of any politician on the ABC I've ever seen. And then there's the Murdoch media. Anti-conservative media bias - rubbish.

Commenter

bratman

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 1:56PM

The criticism of our treatment of refugees has been ongoing for decades, during the first time with Rudd though it was muted by the fact that we were almost living up to our own laws and recognising that refugees leave because of the danger, arriving here is a good thing as it saves lives.

Why the right wing nutters believe the racist media propaganda and lies on the issue is beyond me but most of our media are too lazy to even find out what the law is as they prattle out endlessly that ad campaigns and statements miraculously become laws just because they are uttered.

The law of this land has been for the past 60 years if you arrive your claim for protection will be assessed and you will be treated with the dignity and respect we signed on to with the ratification of the refugee convention by Bob Menzies which brought the bloody thing into force.

None of what we do follows any of our own laws, laws that are not changed by public statements, yet none of the media know this as they prattle about policies.

Commenter

Marilyn

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 3:11PM

@Cold-Hands. ''Kate McClymont, Michael Smith and Hedley Thomas'' you say? Pfft.Not one of those mentioned would rate as a quality 'journalist' based on my readings. Perhaps you need to read more widely - more independent sites - more views across the wider political spectrum; not just those with moderate to high right-leaning views?

Commenter

Jump

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 3:50PM

*''Kate McClymont, Michael Smith and Hedley Thomas'' you say? Pfft.Not one of those mentioned would rate as a quality 'journalist' based on my readings.*

Jump, perhaps you ought to follow your own advice. Go to MichaelSmithNews.com and see how Smith supports everything he writes with the primary evidence. He single-handedly instigated the police investigation into the false Power-of-Attorney at the heart of the AWU fraud. Thomas broke the Haneef Affair, winning a Gold Walkley, and forced the recall of the Inquiry over Wivenhoe Dam through his reporting. McClymont's work speaks for itself and could by no means be described as "of the Right". Get out of your insular echo chamber and read across the spectrum and perhaps you'll be able to recognise good journalism when you see it.

Commenter

Cold-Hands

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 5:52PM

And there are not many journalists that can write either.Either. I just wrote it.

Commenter

Glen

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 8:33PM

Cold-hands, I agree 100% with everything you say.

She does tend to argue against herself a number of times in the article.

For example, after claiming that various studies show little, if any bias, she then says "Other studies show while a majority of newsroom journalists have liberal leanings, a majority of management leans right" (read that "liberal" with a small "l", as in "left leaning").

Does that mean that should ignore those studies? Or do the journalists win and publish left leaning articles? Or do the management win and delete those articles, replacing them with right leaning articles? And should we ignore the previous studies she mentioned?

In short, she has produced little, if anything, to justify her stance - which, on her own evidence, I find very difficult to support.

Commenter

LesM

Date and time

April 26, 2014, 11:36PM

Cold Hands "The over 4000 in detention obviously all arrived after the election because reporting and criticism was muted or non-existent before then.“

Many of us spoke out against Rudd Mk2 and his policy of sending a asylum seekers off shore. There were certainly articles in the press critical of it too.

The strength of the criticism may be stronger now, and this correlates to the even harsher conditions, and more inhumane decisions of Scott Morrison. Joe Hockey before the election said sending unaccompanied minors to Manus or Nauru would be over his dead body. But the government, of which he is the Treasurer, has sent a number of unaccompanied minors to these hell holes.

Commenter

Jans

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 27, 2014, 7:06AM

Great column! The 'journalists' who accuse others of bias are usually the most biased themselves.